Here's an evolutionists that admits no one knows,but goes on like Charles Darwin and asserts "it must be evolution"anyway.Also notice how he claims Creationists are unscientific because they dont beleive it happened through slow gradual steps.

Does Butterfly Metamorphosis Disprove Evolution?

Creationists (some of whom have degrees in science, but don't behave as scientists do) cite the life cycle of a butterfly against evolution. They point to the complexity of the complete Metamorphosis the Butterfly goes through - egg, larva, pupa, adult. How could such a process develop by what creationists misleadingly call "random, accidental, evolution?".

This problem shows the difference between creationists and scientists. When creationists see something complex and seemingly impossible to explain, they ascribe it to a divine miracle, saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation. When scientists see something like this, they don't immediately give up as creationists do. They see it as a problem to be solved and set about working on it. It may take many years, and scientists admit when a puzzle has not yet been solved. Creationists quote such admissions out of context, to try to imply that evolutionary scientists doubt whether evolution occurred!

The development of the Metamorphosis process is not as impossible as creationists try to make it sound. The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way creationists misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process, going by the laws of physics and chemistry that make the genetic and biological processes. It is possible to trace out a possible scenario of development, to test against the data that is found.

Not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven. Not every step is preserved in stone and amber insect bodies do not readily fossilize. It is unreasonable to demand every step be preserved. But it does show that life cycle evolution is not impossible, and this is a working hypothesis to compare findings with. By looking for remains of transitional forms, and by making genetic comparisons that show the distance between insect forms, and by examining insect growth processes that have continued today, the development of butterfly growth can be traced.

This is not story spinning, or ad hoc excuse building. It is not taking evolution on faith. It's an attempt to trace a means of solving a problem by logical, step by step means. The problem of how the Complete Metamorphosis life cycle of the Butterfly evolved is not solved. But neither is it impossible as creationists say it is. It is a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim a miracle, are working on solving.

This really is an exciting time to live in. My faith and desire to learn were completely revolutionized when I realized how completely GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s creative grandeur and infallible Word lined up so neatly.

I know we get accused of being lazy when we say God-did-it but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no different than comparing a guy who spends his life pulling his hair out trying to duplicate a magnificent computer program by bashing on a keyboard randomly to prove it can be done, verses being the guy who simply researches the information available on the programmer, going to his/her office, and asking insightful questions regarding thoughts for deciding to make the program as they did and exploring the usefulness and functionality of the program.

The second person is going to make more useful progress than the one who is set on proving that things happen the way they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

I personally receive great joy sharing the little known but very potent creation perspective that demolishes DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s false pretensions. I know on a forum like this it is hard to tell if people are really thinking about the exchange and the truth, or if they are just calculating their next maneuver.

However, in my daily life talking with friends and family, I find it very rewarding to discuss what weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been taught through public education about the ToE and whether it holds up to scrutiny and then turning around and sharing how the Bible continues to stand up untouched and infallible against honest scrutiny and inquiry.

Knowing that I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to do mental contortions to look at butterflies through the lens of evolution and simply allowing God to be the Author of creation, as He is, takes the pressure off of me and allows me to let Him tell the correct story of how things work by His Word and in His world.

Some Christians may have a lazy approach to truth or a God-of-the-Gaps mentality but I think those people havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t come face to face with His truth in a substantial enough way. The more I study His world and His Word the more I enjoy rolling my sleeves up and looking for those answers of truth with honesty and humility.

How many stumbling blocks like the butterfly are needed before an evolutionist realizes that the naturalistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s presumptions are a facade?

I think it is very interesting to study people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Atkins and Harris. They really are like religious secular clergy.

This is all really off topic, though.

You and I have been having a good time talking and I enjoy your candor. Tell me. How would blind chance and necessity pave an avenue for a very common but wildly unusual creature like the butterfly and moth? I would actually enjoy taking seriously any proposal you can give. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can even present something plausible.

How does a creature evolve a multi-personality complex, living half of its life as a leaf-eating caterpillarÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦making a home to liquefy and put on some new clothesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Drop a few short stubby feet...add some long slender legs... reconfigure the body... add a couple of delicate wings...

Proclaim a miracle (oh wait we can't do that because David Hume said miracles don't happen )

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦then transform into a flower pollinating butterfly.

Even wild guesses are welcome as to how natural pressures could pull this off.

I find your post rather odd from my perspective. You talk about the "very potent creation perspective that demolishes DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s false pretensions". Yet, I've had my ear to the ground of the scientific community and biotech industry for the last half a decade. I've personally been amazed by the advances in biology, particularly with respect to evolutionary biology. Seeing things like the advances of genomics and bioinformatics in general, and the application of evolutionary biology to these fields and how they contribute to greater understanding of biological life and usefulness in biological application.

I think your programming example is a little ironic actually. Applying evolutionary context to things like genomics research (i.e. comparative genomics and phylogenomics) actually yields greater level of insight and understanding than raw statistical evaluation alone (which is about the only thing you could do if genomes were designed independently). Like in my example in the other thread, such an approach led researchers to discover an HIV suppressing protein. Could they have made the same discovery with a non-evolutionary approach? A pure statistical one? Maybe, but possibly not as well. Everything in literature I've read on genomics and evolutionary biology, suggests that evolutionary approaches are superior. And they continue to get used day in and day out.

It's also a little ironic when you look at lesser-known applications of evolution to things like engineering and computer science (i.e. evolutionary algorithms). IIRC, Boeing has used such algorithms in airplane design. And similar approaches have been used to software design. Yes, sometimes random interations (combined with selection of course) can produce real programs. For example, it was used to create an AI for playing checkers.

I know creationists have been calling for the demise of evolutionary biology since the day Darwin published Origin, but having looked at the history of the science and staying abreast of current literature on the subject, I don't think evolutionary biology is going away any time soon.

And the only way contemporary evolutionary biology can ever go away is if someone comes along with something to replace it with. And by replace it, I mean replace in totality as an explanatory device in biology, but also in terms of application. I haven't seen any sign of this happening.

You and I have been having a good time talking and I enjoy your candor. Tell me. How would blind chance and necessity pave an avenue for a very common but wildly unusual creature like the butterfly and moth? I would actually enjoy taking seriously any proposal you can give. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can even present something plausible.

I honestly have no idea and quite frankly, I haven't read the literature on it. In order to answer this, I'd have to first do the research into the biology of butterflies and subsequent literature on the evolution of butterflies. It's the same with the virus thread. Stuff like this isn't simple and takes time to peruse the current thinking and research on the subject.

And really, I don't have the time for all that right now. I generally try to stick with stuff I am more familiar with (i.e. stuff I've spent the last half decade learning about). And my area of interest centers on genomics and applied biology.

I also think if you are serious about wanting this knowledge, have you done any research yourself? Read any books on insect biology or evolution? Searched for journal articles on the subject? With things like Google Scholar at our fingertips, there's not much excuse to not search.

Let me ask you point blank: How much work have you put into learning about the subject of evolutionary biology?

Btw, out of curiousity I did do some cusory searching on articles and came across this reference: The origins of insect metamorphosis. I didn't bother to read the article in its entirety, but here is a relevant portion:

How did the three-part life cycle that characterizes the Holometabola evolve from the nymph and adult stages of more basal insects? Two opposing hypotheses have been advanced. The first was formulated by Berlese4, who noted a similarity between different larval body forms and the morphological transitions seen during embryogenesis of hemimetabolous insects. He proposed that the holometabolous larva arose by a process of 'de-embryonization' so that the larva was essentially a free-living, feeding embryo. The premature hatching was thought to be caused by a reduction in the amount of yolk stored in the egg, and hatching at different times generated a diversity of larval forms. As the larva took over the feeding responsibilities, the nymph was reduced to a single instar that became the pupa.

The alternative hypothesis for metamorphosis held that larvae and nymphs were equivalent, and that the pupal stage arose de novo, as the disparity between larva and adult widened5, 6. Proponents of the latter hypothesis claimed that there was no difference in the amount of yolk in the eggs of holometabolous and hemimetabolous insects7, and that some larval specializations, such as the abdominal prolegs of certain scorpionfly larvae, were derived structures that did not arise from the embryonic appendages8. The latter hypothesis, considering larvae and nymphs as equivalent stages, has been more widely followed9, 10. Our examination of the endocrine control of embryonic and postembryonic development, though, suggests that the roots of metamorphosis are to be found in embryonic stages, more in line with the views of Berlese, and as recognized by the Czechoslovakian insect physiologist, V. Novak11

You'll need access through a library or university to read the full article. It's quite technical with respect to insect development and biology, which is why I originally said I'd need to research general insect biology beforehand to fully understand and appreciate papers like this. Biology is not a simple subject.

Anyway, I wanted to give you something as a starting point so you don't think I'm being too difficult over this. But this sort of thing does take time and effort to appreciate, so you have to be willing to do some grunt work of your own if you really want to find answers.

Surely they are the same animal aren't they?Ã‚Â Same DNA and everything.

Well they are the same organisms with two distinct and totally unique morphologies at different points in their life cycle. If Natural selection pressure is responsible for the basic morphology of the butterfly, or the moth for that matter, and their respective caterpillar, than explain how selective pressure produces an animal that changes body plans so drastically mid-life.

This isn't an isolated case either. Butterflies and moths just exhibit one of the grandest transformations. Though I have a feeling, the resurrection and glorified bodies transformation will be far more spectacular.

Well they are the same organisms with two distinct and totally unique morphologies at different points in their life cycle. If Natural selection pressure is responsible for the basic morphology of the butterfly, or the moth for that matter, and their respective caterpillar, than explain how selective pressure produces an animal that changes body plans so drastically mid-life.

This isn't an isolated case either. Butterflies and moths just exhibit one of the grandest transformations. Though I have a feeling, the resurrection and glorified bodies transformation will be far more spectacular.

No, you're right. This isn't isolated to just the Butterfly or Moth. There are many other insects that exhibit similar behaviour in their life cycles. From simple moulting of the exoskeleton, to the complex larval, pupal, and adult forms.

Edit: I just read through your post again, what do you mean by "Though I have a feeling, the resurrection and glorified bodies transformation will be far more spectacular."?

This isn't an isolated case either. Butterflies and moths just exhibit one of the grandest transformations. Though I have a feeling, the resurrection and glorified bodies transformation will be far more spectacular.

To be fair, one shouldn't expect the evolutionists to explain all the wonders exhibited by transforming insects here. The butterfly should suffice. The rest could be discussed in another thread, or maybe later on in this thread after the butterfly discussion.